ALBANY COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION - cdn.ymaws.com · 4 | Albany County Bar Association Newsletter | July/August 2018 COURT OF APPEALS NOTE In Keller-Goldman v. Goldman, 2018 Westlaw 2931052

As some of you know, the Attorneys in Public Service Committee (“APS”) was formed to foster increased participation by public sector attorneys in the Bar As-sociation. The committee acknowledges that attorneys in government have differ-ing needs than those in private practice or in-house positions. Therefore APS is focused on making sure public sector attorneys feel welcome and that their needs are addressed by ACBA. To that end, APS began hosting a social event about seven years ago which was held in the rotunda of City Hall with just a hand-ful of people in attendance. The goal was to celebrate being public servants and to socialize with fellow bar members. Now the social has evolved into an an-nual ACBA tradition with the addition of public service awards given to members of ACBA after a competitive review pro-cess.

Most recently, the APS Award event, held on June 20, 2018, was inspiring and attended by close to 80 people. Un-doubtedly, a big draw to the event was the two recipients of awards. The recipi-ent of the Commitment to Excellence was Acting Supreme Court Justice Denise Hartman. After she was introduced by Andy Ayers, the Executive Director of the Government Law Center, it was crystal clear that the award was well-deserved. In addition, the evening celebrated an-other awardee—Judge Mae D’Agostino, former president of ACBA and current United States District Judge of the North-ern District of New York, who received the Gavel Award. This award was pre-sented by former ACBA president Judge Peter Crummey. Among other things, the award recognizes the importance of ed-ucating students regarding the judicial branch of government and, after learn-ing about Judge D’Agostino’s years of educating Albany Law School students and many others, we all celebrated her recognition.

At the commencement of the award ceremony, I was honored to give open-ing remarks and I began by pointing out that while we were there to celebrate the two awardees, we were also there to celebrate every individual in the room who has made a commitment to public service either through work in the pub-lic sector or through a commitment to provide pro bono services as private practitioners. I also highlighted what I have come to realize in my tenure as president which is that members of the bench and bar, regardless of where they practice have a lot in common. Most of us went to law school to make a differ-ence, to be an advocate and we believe in justice for all.

Before and after the ceremony mem-bers of the bench and bar mingled, had some food and drinks while old friends caught up and some new friendships began. Indeed, this event reminded me of how much ACBA offers to all it’s mem-bers—Volunteer and Pro Bono Oppor-tunities, Networking, Business and Pro-fessional Growth, Committee Comradery and most importantly—Fun. Nonethe-less, what I like about celebrating pub-lic servants is the fact that public sector work is extremely crucial to a functioning society, but many times that work goes unnoticed. This event is a way to annu-ally honor essential public service work and this year we were all blown away by the two awardees.

This month I had the privilege of inter-viewing ACBA member Serena Joyce White-Lake.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

NEWSLETTER

ALBANY COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION

WHAT’S INSIDE:

July/August 2018 | A Publication of the Albany County Bar Association

Continued on page 2

HON. CHRISTINA L. RYBAACBA President, 2018

[email protected]

Matrimonial Law Update ............... 4Fruitcakes, Dummies, Whiners, and Weasels ................................ 6Immigration Law Update .............. 8Animal Law Update ........................ 9Surrogate’s Court Proceedings and Updates................................. 10Labor and Employment Practice ... 12 Forms Over Substance Revisited ........................................ 13Judging the Judges ....................... 16Tax Breaks for Businesses Hiring New Employees ................ 18Bench & Bar News ......................... 21Classified .... ................................. 24Calendar of Events ......................... 27

2 | Albany County Bar Association Newsletter | July/August 2018

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE

From the introduction of the Diversity & Inclusion credit requirement to the chang-es in the Appellate Court Rules of Practice, programming through the Albany Coun-ty Bar Association is continuously being driven to develop relevant, timely and en-gaging topics for our local legal commu-nity. As an additional benefit for our mem-bers, these programs will be recorded and placed online, so access will be available 24/7.

If you don’t see a program or topic that you need or are interested in, please con-tact me and let me know what type of sub-ject / program might serve you best in your practice. Likely, there is a community of

The purpose of the Albany County Bar Association is to promote professional collegiality among the bench and bar; facilitate public service and access to justice for all; and offer programs, benefits and services to enhance the skills of its members.

MISSION STATEMENT

like-minded individuals who would be inter-ested in your ideas as well.

The upcoming Clam Bake event has sparked quite a bit of excitement from many members and we anticipate it being a very well attended event. I, along with the entire ACBA Board of Directors, would like to thank all of our Clam Bake sponsors for their commitment to bringing back this tra-ditional favorite. I would also like to thank the Young Lawyers Committee for their determination in making the Clam Bake a success. We look forward to seeing you on September 6th! ●

Marquita Jo

MARQUITA JO RHODESExecutive Director [email protected]

President Hon. Christina L. Ryba

President – Elect Daniel J. Hurteau

Vice President Michael P. McDermott

Treasurer Elizabeth J. Grogan

Secretary Mathew P. Barry

Immediate Past President James E. Hacker

Board of Directors

Hon. Ryan T. Donovan

William T. Little, Jr.

Lisa R. Harris

Kathleen A. Barclay

Dean Alicia Ouellette ex officio

Vincent E. Polsinelli

Lorraine R. Silverman

Eileen M. Stiglmeier

Caitlin J. Monjeau

Benjamin Clark

Chair of Admissions

Amanda Kuryluk

Albany County Bar Association 2018 OFFICERS

What is your current job title and what does your job entail?

I work as an Assistant Counsel in the Employment Law Unit (the ELU) of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS). My primary responsibilities include analyzing com-plaints of discrimination against em-ployees, drafting legal opinions based thereon, and representing the agency at hearings before the New York State Divi-sion of Human Rights. I am also a mem-ber of OCFS’ Racial Equity Learning Ex-change, a cohort of employees who work to eliminate racial disproportionalities in the areas of juvenile justice, foster care, child welfare, labor relations, hiring and firing decisions, etc.

What inspired you to work in public service?

I always intended to use my legal ed-ucation to help others. Upon graduating from law school, I clerked for the New

York State Court of Appeals, where Stu-art M. Cohen, former Chief Clerk of the Court, emphasized that “it is an honor to work as a public servant.” Mr. Cohen explained that, there are several ways to make a living—many of which are unde-sirable. But being able to help others and positively impact society while earning income, is truly honorable.

Continued on page 2

Continued from page 1

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE (continued)

Albany County Bar Association Newsletter | July/August 2018 | 3


PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE (continued)

At the Court of Appeals, I observed how court decisions directly impacted people’s lives. The decisions affected whether a person would get a new tri-al and possibly be freed from prison, whether someone received compensa-tion for injuries, or whether a person al-leging discrimination could sue certain entities under specific provisions of law. Going to OCFS was a natural next step in my career because it allowed me to con-tinue working for New York State—which I enjoy, and to use the skills I developed at the Court.

Has your role in public service shaped your view on what it means to be an attorney?

No because I always considered law-yers to be protectors and problem-solv-ers. Each day at work I am reminded of the importance of our roles as attorneys because the dozens of units in my agen-cy seek the advisement of the Division of Legal Affairs before making decisions

that will affect people’s lives.

What do you find most valuable with your ACBA membership?

The friendships that I am developing with ACBA members! Having so many lawyers as friends does feel a bit monot-onous, but I keep meeting great people through ACBA, so—so be it!

I am so thrilled to be a member of ACBA. Executive Director Marquita Rhodes was always very nice to me when I would see her at different events, and she invited me to attend ACBA events, even though I was not a member. One such ACBA event was the February Brown Bag Lunch held in the chambers of United States Judge Mae D’agostino. I sat two seats away from Judge D’agosti-no, who, over orange juice and sizeable donuts, imparted wise career advice, and patiently answered each of the ques-tions of the attorneys and law students in attendance. Upon returning to work that

afternoon, I immediately joined ACBA. Finally, I enjoy the opportunity ACBA pro-vides to have real conversations and de-velop relationships with other attorneys, partners, judges, law students, and legal support and bar association staff.

What can ACBA do to encourage more public attorneys to join?

ACBA can continue to offer trainings, including financial-themed ones like budgeting for lawyers, strategies to pay off student loans, or long term care insur-ance for lawyers. Additionally, continuing to offer low- to no-cost events for public attorneys will allow them to experience ACBA, and consider joining. Finally, ACBA should continue to collaborate with other bar associations, public inter-est firms, and non-profit organizations, to organize events to meet more public sector attorneys, and ask them what they want from a bar association. ●


COURT OF APPEALS NOTE

In Keller-Goldman v. Goldman, 2018 Westlaw 2931052 (June 12, 2018), the Court of Appeals affirmed an Appel-late Division order (149 AD3d 422 [1st Dept. 2017] and see ACBA Newsletter June 2017), upholding Supreme Court’s October 2015 judgment, which placed a cap on the college room and board credit to the husband under the parties’ incorporated agreement, “in a manner that ensured adequate support to each unemancipated child, as the parties clearly intended” citing DRL 240(1-b)(h). CSSA child support for the 3 chil-dren with the mother was $5,000 per month; the parties deviated downward to $2,500 per month. The emancipation step down child support amount upon the emancipation of the first child was $2,150 per month. The husband was entitled to a room and board credit, and sought a $1,200 per month credit for the eldest child, which would have resulted in child support being reduced to $1,300 per month. Supreme Court capped the room and board credit at $350 per month, to match the step down amount of $2,150 per month.

Agreements – Interpretation – College Consultation

In Matter of Wheeler v. Wheeler, 2018 Westlaw 2751467 (4th Dept. June 8, 2018), the parties’ agreement provided that they would contribute to their chil-dren’s college education and would con-sult with each other and their children concerning the college selection pro-cess. A Support Magistrate found the fa-ther to be in violation for failing to contrib-ute to his daughter’s college costs, and Family Court’s October 2016 order sus-tained his objection. The Fourth Depart-ment modified, on the law, by reinstating the Support Magistrate’s order, holding that the father’s agreement to contribute to his daughter’s college expenses was not “conditioned on him being consulted regarding her choice of college” and did not “condition either party’s duty to con-tribute to college expenses upon such consultation.”

MATRIMONIAL LAW UPDATE

Bruce J. WagnerMcNamee Lochner P.C. [email protected]

Custody – Contempt – Medical Treatment – Denied

In Matter of Spicer v. Spicer, 2018 Westlaw 3041204 (2d Dept. June 20, 2018), the Second Department affirmed a July 2017 Family Court order, which, without a hearing, dismissed her petition seeking to hold the father in contempt of a February 2012 order which provided for joint legal custody, with primary cus-tody to the father, upon the ground that he took the child to a psychiatric evalua-tion, and did not inform her until the next day. The Appellate Division held that the 2012 order “contains no mechanism for the parties’ joint decision-making *** [or] any time frame during which they must communicate *** about the child’s medical issues,” and concluded that the father violated no “clearly expressed un-equivocal mandate.”

Custody – Modification – Sole to Father; Mother Changes in Residence, Paramours, Sex Offender Contact; Facebook Posts

In Matter of Brent O. v. Lisa P., 2018 Westlaw 2048983 (3d Dept. May 3, 2018), the Third Department affirmed a January 2017 Family Court order, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s No-vember 2015 petition (and supplemental petitions) to modify a November 2013 stipulated order, which had conferred sole legal and primary physical custody of the parties’ daughter born in 2005 to the mother, with visitation in North Caro-lina to the father, so as to grant him sole custody. Family Court also granted an or-der of protection prohibiting contact be-tween the child and certain maternal rel-atives. The father subsequently moved to Oklahoma. There was no dispute that changed circumstances warranted mod-ification. The Appellate Division affirmed “that the child has spent nearly her en-tire life in the care of her mother” but that Family Court’s “grave concern for the child’s well-being and stability while with the mother is well-founded and support-ed by the evidence.” The Third Depart-ment had “particular concern” that the mother permitted the child “to be present at family gatherings with a family mem-

ber she knew to be a convicted sex of-fender, as well as her decision to expose the child to a convicted murderer. *** The mother’s Facebook page, which could be viewed by the public, contained provocative pictures of herself, a number of sexually explicit ‘picture quotes’ and lewd remarks and expletives that she ad-mitted she would not want her children to see. When questioned as to whether she would cease using Facebook if ordered to do so by the court, the mother indicat-ed that she would but that it would be a ‘hardship.’” The Appellate Division cited testimony “that the child was failing core classes at school, yet the mother could not name one of the child’s teachers.” On the implicit issue of relocation, the Appel-late Division noted: “Although an award of custody to the father would necessarily result in the child’s relocation to Oklaho-ma, upon balancing the Tropea factors (citation omitted), we are satisfied that the father met his ‘burden of establish-ing, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that the proposed relocation would be in the child’s best interests.’”

Custody – Standing – Equitable Estoppel

In Matter of K.G. v. C.H., 2018 West-law 3118937 (1st Dept. June 26, 2018), Petitioner KG appealed from an April 2017 Supreme Court judgment [55 Mis-c3d 723 and see ACBA Newsletter June 2017] which, after trial, denied her peti-tion for joint custody and dismissed the proceeding for lack of standing. KG and CH agreed in 2007 to adopt and raise a child together. Their romantic relation-ship ended in 2010 and was formalized in a May 2010 written agreement. In March 2011, the adoption agency iden-tified a 15 month old child as a “match” for CH, and CH finalized the adoption on her own in January 2012. The First De-

Continued on page 5


partment held that Supreme Court’s con-sideration of whether the parties’ 2007 agreement and plan to jointly adopt a child “was still in place at the operative time,” namely, in March 2011 when the child was identified by the agency, is not inconsistent with Matter of Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.C.C., 28 NY3d 1 (2016). The Appellate Division rejected KG’s ar-gument that “once the existence of the 2007 agreement was established, the trial court should not have inquired fur-ther,” holding: “We do not believe that even the most expansive definition of who is a ‘parent’ supports this sweeping interpretation.” Supreme Court denied CH’s motion to dismiss KG’s case after she rested, and, as found by the First Department, “the court expressly stat-ed [at a subsequent court appearance] that it would not be ruling substantively on the equitable estoppel issue because it was not raised in KG’s papers; it was not pleaded.” KG then successfully moved for an order precluding CH from presenting evidence opposing equitable estoppel. Given that the record was in-complete on the issue of equitable es-toppel, the Appellate Division held that the matter “cannot be decided without CH having the opportunity to be heard and on an otherwise patently incomplete record.” The First Department deter-mined that the record was “incomplete in other respects as well,” which precluded the Court from “reaching the merits of the parties’ respective substantive claims on the issue of equitable estoppel ***.” The Appellate Division noted Supreme Court’s denial of “repeated requests by KG’s attorney for the appointment of an attorney for the child, a forensic evalua-tion and/or a Lincoln hearing.” Therefore, the First Department modified the judg-ment, on the law and the facts, and re-manded for further proceedings.

Custody – Third Party – Granted to Non-Biological Father; Counsel Fees

In Matter of Renee’ P.F. v. Frank G., 161 AD3d 1163 (2d Dept. May 30, 2018), the biological father (Frank) of now 8 year old twins, born to the sister (Renee’) of the non-biological father (Joseph) under a surrogacy contract, appealed from, among other things, a February 2017

Family Court order, which, after a hear-ing following the Second Department’s order [142 AD3d 928 (2d Dept. Sept. 6, 2016) and see ACBA Newsletter Octo-ber 2016] determining that Joseph had standing to seek custody, granted cus-tody to Joseph. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that Family Court’s or-der was in the children’s best interests, where Frank refused to allow Joseph to have contact with the children as of May 2014 and then relocated with the chil-dren to Florida without informing Joseph. The Court also affirmed separate orders directing Frank to pay Joseph counsel fees of $25,000 and $15,000 in counsel fees to Renee’.

Family Offense – Occurrences Outside NY; Remoteness in Time

In Matter of Rushane P. v. Boris L.R., 73 NYS3d 425 (1st Dept. May 10, 2018), the First Department reversed an August 2017 Family Court order, which dismissed a family offense petition “which alleged family offenses that occurred in New York, Pennsylvania, and Jamaica, on the ground that the only incident alleged to have occurred in New York happened in 2014, three years before the filing of the petition.” The Court held: subject matter jurisdiction is not “limited by geography”; and FCA §812(1) provides that “a court shall not ... dismiss a petition[] solely on the basis that the acts or events alleged are not relatively contemporaneous with the date of the petition.”

Maintenance – Durational – Increased to Non-Durational; Health Insurance

In Greco v. Greco, 2018 Westlaw 2225174 (2d Dept. May 16, 2018), the Second Department modified an April 2015 Supreme Court judgment, which awarded the wife maintenance of $4,500 per month for 3 years, and failed to di-rect the husband to pay for her health insurance. The parties were married in 1999 and have 2 children. The Second Department modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by: (1) awarding the wife $4,500 per month in maintenance until the earliest of the following events: the wife’s remarriage or cohabitation, the death of either par-

ty, or until the wife begins to draw Social Security benefits or reaches the age of 67 or such age that she would qualify for full Social Security benefits, at which time the maintenance award will be reduced to $2,000 per month; and (2) directing the husband to pay her health insurance premiums until the earliest of such time as the defendant is eligible for Medicaid or Medicare, or she obtains health insur-ance through employment or remarriage or cohabitation.

Maintenance – Modification – Hearing Granted; Payee Counsel Fees Reversed

In Isichenko v. Isichenko, 2018 West-law 2124041 (2d Dept. May 9, 2018), the Second Department modified a Decem-ber 2015 Supreme Court order, which, without a hearing, denied the former husband’s motion for downward modifi-cation of a July 2011 judgment’s main-tenance award, and granted the former wife’s cross motion for attorney’s fees of $15,000, by (1) deleting the denial of the husband’s motion for downward modifi-cation of maintenance, and (2) denying the wife’s cross motion, and remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings. The Appellate Division found that the husband “demonstrated, prima facie, that his gross annual income has been substantially reduced from the $750,000 in income that was imputed to him for the purpose of the spousal maintenance award in the parties’ divorce judgment. Moreover, the plaintiff’s statements that he was only able to obtain employment at a salary that is significantly lower than the salary he was earning shortly before the parties’ divorce were supported by the sworn submissions of job recruiters, colleagues, and a vocational expert.”

Briefly noted – Violation and Enforcement Proceedings:

Findings of violations were upheld on appeal in Matter of Mauro v. Costello, 2018 Westlaw 2750961 (4th Dept. June 8, 2018) [prior consent order pertaining to communication and visitation] and Matter of Olivari v. Bianco, 2018 Westlaw 2224926 (2d Dept. May 16, 2018) [child support order]. ●


MATRIMONIAL LAW UPDATE (continued)


FRUITCAKES, DUMMIES, WHINERS, AND WEASELSWhining – Turning a Deaf or Deft Ear?

Michael A. Feit, Esq.Law Offices of Michael A. Feit, [email protected]

Rebekah B. Sokol, Esq.Albany County Public Defender’s [email protected]

Last month we jumped right into a dis-cussion of whiners with some categori-zations and illustrations of whining in the law. Recently, Saturday Night Live has been getting quite a bit of interest for their sketches about the President. Turn-ing the clock back a few years, some of you may have, at the time or since on re-runs, seen one of the all-time most pop-ular skits—The Whiners. Joe Piscopo, playing Doug Whiner and Robin Duke, playing Wendy Whiner, spoke all their lines in a whining, nasal tone. They both claimed to suffer from diverticulitis and neither ate anything but macaroni and cheese. Doug and Wendy regulated their diet by choice. They weren’t forced to eat macaroni and cheese. Prisoners and detainees have a choice as well—bologna or peanut butter sandwiches.

As one U.S. Supreme Court Justice said about pornography (do you know which one?) “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.” That certainly was a quotable sound bite, yet others have taken a crack at breaking abstract con-cepts down into smaller pieces. Here are a few attempts at whine—complaint, bellyache, grizzle, yammer, yawp (try that for Scrabble), speak, talk, verbal-ize, utter, kvetch, sound off, snivel, cry, sob, wail, whimper, moan, grumble, gripe, grouse, beef, bellyache, bitch, and some we might be chided for men-tioning in this publication.

So, whining may be a bit more compli-cated than it appeared at first. While the SNL skit portrayed odious characters that most of us would not want to know, audiences were fascinated by the whin-ing, mostly because it was funny. But for

those accused of crime, there’s nothing funny about their circumstances.

Remarkably, jails and prisons haven’t changed much in the past few centuries. Locking up people has seemed okay as a way of dealing with law breakers. Curiously, the same hasn’t been true for non-humans. Circuses are folding their tents, and zoos aren’t about cages any-more. Why? The answer is because people who have looked into the effects that confinement has on non-humans have found a multitude of awful conse-quences. Strangely, penologists are not unaware of the phenomenon. Wardens and correction officers understand that letting prisoners move around outside their cells in the yard, at rec, or even sitting in a common room watching TV, seems to make most inmates less hos-tile and, in many respects, also makes the job of the keepers easier.

A hundred years ago, the first state to introduce conjugal visits for prisoners was—you’d never guess—Mississippi, the ultimate manifestation of racism. The rationale being that it was a better way to control black prisoners. Taking off a woolen sweater on the hottest day of the year feels good. Getting unchained from a post or the leg of another inmate, for an hour or two, probably feels good too.

If all this anthropological mumbo jum-bo sounds out of place for lawyers, may-be it’s time to broaden our perspective. Fifty years ago bookies were arrested—now we have OTB and sports gambling on the horizon, probably to be housed in casinos that were banned until a cou-

ple of years ago. Smoking marijuana in some states, is being promoted by the government while TV public service an-nouncements about smoking tobacco are scarier than any horror movie.

So, maybe it’s not strange that peo-ple, including persons accused of crime, are confused about what’s okay and what’s not. For criminal defense at-torneys, indeed for all attorneys, finding better ways of understanding and com-municating with our clients might make things better for them, and as a byprod-uct, better for us.

When’s the last time (if ever) you said to your client: “I understand how you feel.” Rapport can be a big thing, but it’s out of reach in many cases.

Undoubtedly, the greatest obstacle to developing rapport is the grossly differ-ent perspective between attorney and client of what is the best approach to de-fend the charges. For instance, whiners charged with felonies, even if it is their tenth arrest, often don’t understand the hazards of testifying before the grand jury before which the case is being pre-sented. They whine about not having a chance to testify before the grand jury if you convince them not to “tell their story” or exercise the strategic discre-tion (this is still somewhat undecided in appellate decisions) by saying “no.” If they do testify, and ultimately get indict-ed, they whine about not having been stopped. You discussing the history of grand juries from the Magna Carta to the present time, explaining that many states don’t have grand juries, doesn’t seem to change defendants’ positions about testifying. You explaining that during a grand jury proceeding, the DA can bring out your client’s entire criminal history, tear him apart with questioning while you are powerless to object or step in, reveal forensic evidence and twelve witnesses who saw the whole

Continued on page 7


thing and will be testifying for the pros-ecution, and that the burden of proof is tiny compared to trial, doesn’t seem to stifle the whine.

Many defendants don’t get why their lawyers cringe when the client recounts how, when the police placed them in a windowless room to “talk”, they sang like birds for hours. Or, and this is a big one, whiners harp on how there is noth-ing more important than having a pre-liminary hearing, because that’s what they’ve heard from the guys at the jail and from their relatives, (especially the ones who’ve been in prison). These types of clients ignore how their attorneys might explain that having a preliminary hear-ing does not always make sense for the case, and in view of the fact that they have a parole hold, they’re not going to get a hearing or be released because they didn’t get a hearing. Whining about not getting “their” preliminary hearing on the day it was scheduled, when you explain that they got indicted earlier that day usually doesn’t get the point across. And, don’t forget, that whining about needing a hearing may be the result of defendants’ efforts to convince friends and family that he, the defendant, has nothing to hide or fear.

Ignorance of the minutia and legal concepts that are contained within a criminal action is seen as a mole hill and not a mountain by whiners. This sort of non-thinking, the lack of rational reflec-tion, is what typically leads our clients to run afoul of the law in the first place.

Desperation is a powerful force. Grasping at straws didn’t become cli-ché because it wasn’t true. Listen to the whine, but listen to your own knowledge and instincts more. Defusing a whiner’s laments is the primary objective, but if you can explain things well enough, the whine may not resurface in two days.

Whining allows defendants, like all people, to blow off steam without real-ly fixing their problems. Being a crimi-nal defendant and dealing with piles of

deadlines for motion papers you don’t understand, incomprehensible court delays, and trying to come to terms with why the DA won’t dismiss the case or at least turn over discovery, must feel like being in a constant state of iner-tia. Even worse, any action in the case must be done by the attorney, pushing defendants to the outskirts of their own cases. Clients often use the opportunity to luxuriate in that inertia, griping about their circumstances and misfortune to anyone who will listen.

Often, clients will whine like children do—sometimes as a first resort, some-times when they feel that a parent is not listening to them. Make sure that the first time you hear your client start to kvetch, you take the time to listen. For some whiners, that effort may be all that they need. You also may be dealing with a client who, like a child, has learned to whine as a preferred means of commu-nication, and doesn’t know how else to ask for your help or express the unques-tionably difficult emotions associated with being accused of a serious crime. Trying to get to the bottom of why your client is acting like this may not help you stop the whining, but it will give you greater insight and maybe even sympa-thy towards him.

Turning to the animal kingdom, we have learned that coyotes have two kinds of howls—one to call the pack and the other to ward off others. Domestic dogs have evolved to whine for atten-tion, both from other dogs and their hu-mans, and to express anxiety. So, your whiner gripes to get your attention and sympathy and then, keeps whining until you want to hold your ears and run out of the room. Ordinary people can run, lawyers can’t. One president once said: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!” And, another one said: “The buck stops here.” Both true, but after enduring three years of law school, passing the bar exam, and finding a job, you made a commitment and have an obligation to put up with a litany of laments and the company of people

you would not choose to associate with if you had the choice.

That said, it is important to maintain your own sanity. Fun fact: according to research from Stanford University, a half hour of complaining or listening to com-plaining every day physically damages a person’s brain. This is scary stuff—es-pecially for those of us in a profession in which we undoubtedly exceed that half an hour by lunchtime. Place limits on how long you will listen to the griping before changing topics or even ending the interview. Maybe don’t rush to the jail every time you get a two minute lamen-tation over voicemail. Teach your client that constant complaining is not the way to get your attention, and don’t reinforce the behavior by caving in to whatever she is demanding. You also need to rec-ognize that while you can sympathize with whiners and try to help them legally, you probably will not be able to change their feelings or whining tendencies.

As sympathetic and sensitive as we have tried to be with all “Fruitcakes, Dummies, Whiners, and Weasels” we can’t ignore the fact that, to a great extent, they are unsavory, under-civi-lized, under-educated, unwilling, and perhaps, unable, to cope with or in the dominant society which is the product of law makers who hardly ever come from the same surroundings as our whin-ers. We rarely have the opportunity to re-shuffle the deck and have no choice but to take the cards we are dealt. The best we can do is to follow the words in an Emma Lazarus poem: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.” There is a dif-ference between the Statue of Liberty and the statute of limitations, but per-haps not as great as one might think.

Last month, we invited input from readers on how best to deal with whin-ers. Since this month’s installment was written before you got to read our solic-itation, we’ll await the potential deluge of comments and include them in next month’s article. ●


FRUITCAKES, DUMMIES, WHINERS, AND WEASELS (continued)


IMMIGRATION LAW UPDATE

David W. Meyers, Esq.Meyers and Meyers, [email protected]

Immigration In The Age Of Trump

I recently attended my 35th high school reunion (yes, I am old), and I was speaking with a classmate of mine who asked how I practice immigration law in the age of Trump. I told her that I don’t have much hair left to pull out, but more to the question that she was really asking me, I noted to her that two very significant things had happened barely in the course of one week.

First, on May 11, 2018, U.S. Citizen-ship & Immigration Services (“USCIS”) posted a policy memorandum changing how it will calculate “unlawful presence” for students and exchange visitors in F, J, and M nonimmigrant status, including for family dependents, who fail to main-tain their status in the United States.

Second, Attorney General Jeff Ses-sions issued a May 17, 2018 decision in Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018), which revoked immigration judges’ and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) general authority to ad-ministratively close cases, or temporar-ily close cases without deciding them, with some limited exceptions. These exceptions include situations where administrative closure is specifically authorized by regulations promulgated by the Department of Justice or judicial settlement agreements.

I remember something a colleague of mine said when I first started practicing immigration law. I was attending a CLE, and one of the panelists said that if a practitioner in this area did not review each and every morning the “Recent Postings” on the American Immigration Lawyer Association’s website, that such a failure probably constituted legal mal-practice. I don’t know if anyone’s actual-ly been on the wrong side of that belief defending a legal malpractice action, but anecdotally I can tell you I agree.

Practicing in this area of law is chal-lenging enough on a day-to-day basis,

and the law regularly evolves over time, as with any practice area. But the law of immigration is seeing seismic shifts, in short-periods of time, and its impacting everyone in ways too numerous to even count.

With respect to USCIS’s new poli-cy memorandum, it instructs USCIS to deem “unlawful presence” to start ac-cruing as of the day after the date that a status violation occurs. This now re-moves a critical procedural safeguard of providing notice of this to affected in-dividuals that may now find themselves subject to either three- or ten-year bars of admissibility to the United States. The new guidance will take effect on August 9, 2018.

In essentially what feels like one fell swoop, USCIS is now reversing more than 20 years of USCIS practice regard-ing the accrual of “unlawful presence,” which is term of art defined under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) by reference to an individual who “is present in the United States after expi-ration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being ad-mitted or paroled.” For nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors in the F, J, and M visa categories, both legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) and USCIS have interpreted the law to require notice to the individual of a status violation prior to the clock start-ing on unlawful presence clock. This longstanding policy provides certainty in determining when unlawful presence begins to accrue. No more.

With respect to administrative closure, this is basically a docket-management mechanism that Immigration Judges and the BIA have used for more than thirty years to essentially suspend re-moval or deportation proceedings in appropriate cases. Under the BIA’s legal standards set forth in Matter of

Avetisyan and Matter of W-Y-U-,1 cases are closed, often with the consent of trial counsel who work for the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), for, e.g., in-dividuals who are awaiting adjudication of a related matter that is collateral to their removal / deportation proceeding (such as a family-based immigrant peti-tion or adjustment of status application before USCIS), individuals who have been granted deferred action for some reason, or even individuals who have mental competency issues. An individ-ual with an administratively closed case is still in removal or deportation pro-ceedings, but his or her case is inactive while proceedings are administratively closed.

Administrative closure is often a won-derful tool that practitioners can take advantage of for strategic reasons. No more (with few exceptions). Practi-tioners in this area will now have to do a careful review of all of their adminis-tratively closed cases and reach out to each of their clients about this decision and what it might mean to their case.

I very much enjoy practicing immi-gration law, but the last 18 months have been nothing short of exhausting for me and all my colleagues who practice in this area. And I mean everyone. No law-yer likes practicing law where there is so much uncertainty, and for sure, no client should have to deal with all this uncer-tainty either. ●

1. Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012); Mat-ter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017).


ANIMAL LAW UPDATE

Airlines ban emotional support animalsIn mid-May American Airlines, citing

public health risks, announced that in-sects, goats, ferrets, spiders, chickens, hawks and hedgehogs could not be brought on-board as “emotional sup-port animals”. Persons wanting to bring an emotional support animal on a flight will now have to file paperwork 48 hours in advance of the flight. Legitimate emotional support animals are typically allowed on flights however, American stated that the use of such animals has increased by more than 40% in recent years. Apparently however miniature horses will be allowed as long as they are “properly trained”.

Other airlines have also recently be-gun restrictions due to the increased numbers of questionable service ani-mals. These airlines include Jet Blue, Delta and United.

Animal Advocacy Day

The Senate and Assembly once again sponsored “Animal Advocacy Day” in early June to give animal rights organi-zations and individuals a direct oppor-tunity to lobby their representatives for various animal related legislation. Some of the current pending bills in the Senate and Assembly which were expected to pass the Senate prior to the end of ses-sion are:

S1680A / A3038B – “Kirby and Quig-ley’s Law” would expand the definition of aggravated cruelty to animals in include harm to a companion animal during the commission of another felony.

S1712 / A8082 – Increase “Buster’s Law” penalties from 2 to 4 years in pris-on and fines from $5,000 to $10,000.

S2501 / A6938 – Prohibits a person with a “Buster’s Law” conviction from owning a companion animal.

S594 / A3816 – adds animal fighting as a criminal act when referring to enter-prise corruption.

S7415C / A10082B – Prohibits the leas-ing of companion animals.

S177C / A9970B – Relating to the dispo-sition of certain cats.

S299 / A95 – Increases penalties for multiple convictions of killing or tortur-ing an animal.

S728 / A3845 – Relates to aggravated cruelty to animals in the presence of a child.

S1137 / A8712 – Increases the maximum fine for the abandonment of animals.

S1256 / A3870 – Includes theft of a pet within the crime of grand larceny in the 4th degree.

Have a happy and relaxing summer! ●

Jonathan G. Schopf, Esq.Schopf Law, [email protected]

Morning Meet & Greet at Tully Rincky PLLC | July 12, 2018


SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUES

An Insiders’ View

Hon. Stacy L. Pettit, Surrogate Alima M. Atoui, Esq., Law Clerk Deborah S. Kearns, Esq., Chief Clerk Albany County Surrogate’s Court

COMMISSIONS PAYABLE ON AN ESTATE

When an executor or administrator actively performs the duties of adminis-tering a decedent’s estate and assumes liability for doing so, the fiduciary is entitled to be compensated with com-missions (see Matter of LoBono, NYLJ, Mar. 1, 1985 at 15, col 5 [Sur Ct, Queens County 1985]). Unless the amount of compensation is set by the terms of the will or other instrument, commis-sions payable to an estate fiduciary are set by statute, specifically SCPA 2307 in the case of executors and adminis-trators. Note that SCPA 2307 does not apply to commissions for trustees (see SCPA 2308, 2309 and 2312), prelimi-nary executors (see SCPA 1412 [7]) or fiduciaries of a deceased fiduciary (see SCPA 2207 [6]). Also note that voluntary administrators of a small estate are not entitled to any commissions (see SCPA 1307 [1]).

An estate fiduciary is not automati-cally entitled to the amount of statutory commissions, and the court has discre-tion to deny commissions in whole or in part (see Matter of Kaskawits, 25 Misc 3d 1228[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52317[U] at *5-6 [Sur Ct, Westchester County 2009]). Furthermore, the court may sur-charge a fiduciary above and beyond denying commissions if assets dimin-ish in value due to negligent retention of assets or due to other misconduct of the fiduciary (see e.g. Matter of Janes, 165 Misc 2d 743 [Sur Ct, Monroe Coun-ty 1995], mod, 223 AD2d 20 [4th Dept 1996], affd, 90 NY2d 41 [1997]).

Computation of Statutory Commissions under SCPA 2307

SCPA 2307 (1) provides, subject to limitations, that commissions will be paid on the settlement of the account of

a fiduciary in the following amounts:

(a) for receiving and paying out all sums of money not exceeding $100,000 at the rate of 5%.

(b) for receiving and paying out any ad-ditional sums not exceeding $200,000 at the rate of 4%.

(c) for receiving and paying out any ad-ditional sums not exceeding $700,000 at the rate of 3%.

(d) for receiving and paying out any ad-ditional sums not exceeding $4,000,000 at the rate 2 ½%

(e) for receiving and paying out all sums above $5,000,000 at the rate of 2%.

Despite the statement in each of the categories that the percentages are paid for “receiving and paying” all sums of money, receiving commissions and paying commissions must be computed separately, in half of the scheduled per-centages. For example, commissions on an estate with assets received hav-ing a value at date of death of $950,000, income received of $50,000, a loss in value of $20,000, and sums paid out for debts, administration expenses and dis-tributions in the sum of $980,000, would be computed as follows:

Receiving commissions on assets and income received ($1,000,000) at half the rates: 2.5% of 100,000 = $2,500, plus 2% of the next $200,000 = $4,000, plus 1.5% of the remaining $700,000 = $10,500, which totals $17,000.

Paying commissions on amounts paid out would be computed on the amount of $980,000, not $1,000,000, because losses are not paid out, at half the rates: 2.5% of 100,000 = $2,500, plus 2% of the next $200,000 = $4,000, plus 1.5% of the remaining $680,000 = $10,200, which totals $16,700.

Total commissions: $17,000 receiv-ing, plus $16,700 paying = $$33,700.

What Assets are Commissionable?

An estate fiduciary may not claim commissions for non-testamentary as-sets such as jointly owned property or insurance payable to a beneficiary, be-cause such assets do not come into the hands of the fiduciary to receive or pay out under the statute. In addition, oth-er assets that are not actually received, such as abandoned or uncollectable property, are not commissionable. A specific legacy or specific devise of property in a will is also not commission-able (see SCPA 2307 [2]). Furthermore, real estate which is not sold, and vests by operation of New York law, is not re-ceived or paid out by a fiduciary, and therefore, not commissionable (see our ACBA February 2017 newsletter article, at page 10, on real property: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.albanycounty bar.org/resource/resmgr/newsletters/Feb17_Newsletter_.pdf).

For assets actually received and paid out, the value of such assets for compu-tation of commissions should be the “fair market value” of the property. The value, if there is a question, is determined in the manner directed by the court pur-suant to SCPA 2307 (2). For instance, if real property was sold by the fiduciary to an unrelated third party within sev-eral months after death for $100,000, that amount is most likely the fair mar-ket value for both receiving and paying commissions. In such a case, it would be improper to base receiving commis-sions on an appraisal of the property for $200,000.

Gains and income received and paid out are commissionable (see SCPA 2307 [2], which provides for commissions on the “value of any property…and the in-crement thereof, received, distributed or delivered”). Rents received are also commissionable, and SCPA 2307 (6)

Continued on page 11


provides for an additional commission on rents collected when the fiduciary actually manages the real property and collects rents.

When commissions are computed on a final accounting which anticipates a decree ordering distribution and pay-ment of all assets remaining on hand, such assets on hand should be includ-ed in the computation of paying com-missions.

When are Commissions Payable?

Only the court may permit payment of commissions prior to or upon the final decree of judicial settlement of the ac-count of the fiduciary, unless the com-missions are paid pursuant to an infor-mal settlement of the estate after receipt of the consent of all beneficiaries. When an estate fiduciary takes a payment for any commissions before a final ac-counting decree or an order is issued by the court allowing partial commis-sions pursuant to SCPA 2310 or SCPA 2311, the court may direct a refund of the amounts be paid to the estate (see Matter of Kern, NYLJ, Apr. 1, 2002 at 25, col 4 [Sur Ct, Nassau County 2002]), to-gether with interest at the statutory rate of 9% (see CPLR 5004). Clearly, it is not a good idea to prepay commissions without permission of the court or con-sents from all the beneficiaries.

If it is advantageous to the estate or the fiduciary to pay an advance on commis-sions before the final accounting, SCPA 2310 and SCPA 2311 proceedings may be brought. If the court approves an ad-vance of partial commissions, typically only receiving commissions will be ap-proved, and the amount advanced will be subject to full review again on the final accounting.

What are the Commissions if There are More Than One Fiduciary?

When the gross value of the estate principal is less than $100,000, no more than one full commission may be paid to the fiduciaries, and such amount must be apportioned among them ac-cording to the services rendered by them respectively (see SCPA 2307 [5]

[a]). When the gross value of the estate principal is more than $100,000 but less than $300,000, no more than two full commissions may be paid to the fidu-ciaries, and such amount must be ap-portioned among them (1) according to the services rendered by them respec-tively or (2) divided among them by agreement, so long as no one fiduciary receives more than one full commission (see SCPA 2307 [5] [b]).

If the gross value of the principal of the estate accounted for amounts to more than $300,000, SCPA 2307 (5) provides that up to three full commis-sions may be paid to three or more fi-duciaries, but this provision is subject to SCPA 2313, which provides that the amount of commissions payable is capped at two full commissions unless

the decedent specifically provided oth-erwise in writing (see SCPA 2313). Thus, if a testator named three executors, and specifically included a provision that all three were entitled to commissions, they would get such commissions, but if there was no specific allowance stated, only two commissions would be shared between the three executors. Again, as with all multiple fiduciaries of an estate, commissions payable must be appor-tioned among the fiduciaries (1) accord-ing to the services rendered by them re-spectively or (2) divided among them by agreement, so long as no one fiduciary receives more than one full commission (see SCPA 2307 [5]).

We look forward to seeing you here in Albany Surrogate’s Court! ●


SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUES (continued)

70 ATTORNEYS NATIONWIDE

• Former elected family court judges• Former federal and local prosecutors• Certified federal “learned counsel”• Former Presidential Appointees• Six offices across upstate New York• Offices in Washington, DC, Texas and California

ALBANY, NY | AUSTIN, TX | BINGHAMTON, NY | BUFFALO, NY HOUSTON, TX | NEW YORK, NY | ROCHESTER, NY

SAN DIEGO, CA | SYRACUSE, NY | WASHINGTON, D.C.

Co-counsel, referrals andemployment opportunities available

Call today for more details:518-218-7100

or email [email protected]


LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE

Glen P. Doherty, Esq.McNamee Lochner P.C. [email protected]

As discussed in my June article, the 2018 NYS Budget included significant changes to the law of sexual harass-ment. One change already went into effect (i.e., employers are now liable for sexual harassment of non-employees), and other changes will take place on July 11, October 9, 2018 and January 1, 2019. Lawyers (as employers) are well advised to take some time during the upcoming summer months to prepare for the various changes.

NON-DISCLOSURE AND MANDATORY ARBITRATION CLAUSES

Effective July 11, 2018, the following clauses are prohibited:

• Use of non-disclosure clauses in settlement agreements that resolve claims of sexual harass-ment – unless requested by the complainant; and

• Inclusion of mandatory arbitration clauses in any employment-relat-ed agreement to resolve claims of sexual harassment – unless contained in a collective bargain-ing agreement.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY AND TRAINING

Effective October 9, 2018, employers must implement a written sexual harass-ment prevention policy and provide sex-ual harassment prevention training to all employees on at least an annual basis.

The sexual harassment prevention policy must (at a minimum):

• Prohibit sexual harassment con-sistent with guidance issued by the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) and New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR);1

• Provide examples of prohibited conduct that would constitute unlawful behavior;

• Include information concerning the federal, state and local statu-tory provisions concerning sexual

harassment;• Include information concerning a

statement of remedies available to victims of sexual harassment;

• Include a standard complaint form and procedure for the timely and confidential investigation of complaints;

• Inform employees of their rights and all available forums for adjudicating sexual harassment complaints, both administratively and judicially;

• State that sexual harassment is considered a form of employee misconduct, and that sanctions will be enforced against individu-als that engage in sexual harass-ment, and against supervisory and managerial personnel who knowingly allow such behavior to continue; and

• State that retaliation against indi-viduals who complain of sexual harassment, or who testify or assist in any proceeding under the law, is unlawful.

The sexual harassment training pro-gram must include (at a minimum):

• An explanation of sexual harass-ment consistent with guidance issued by the DOL and DHR;

• Examples of conduct that would constitute sexual harassment; in-formation concerning the federal, state and local laws concerning sexual harassment and remedies available to victims of sexual harassment;

• Information concerning employ-ees’ rights of redress and all available forums for adjudicating complaints; and

• Information addressing conduct by supervisors and any addition-al responsibilities of such super-visors.

STATE CONTRACTORS

Effective January 1, 2019, all bids for government contracts must contain lan-guage certifying that

1. The DOL and DHR are required to create a model sex-ual harassment prevention policy and sexual harassment training program. As of the publication date of this article, the DOL and DHR have yet to issue any written guidance.

• The bidder has implemented a written sexual harassment prevention policy that meets or exceeds the model policy creat-ed by the DOL and DHR; and

• The bidder has implemented an annual sexual harassment prevention training that meets or exceeds the model program created by the DOL and DHR.

* * * * *

Have a safe summer. ●

The views expressed in the letters and columns reflect the opinions of the authors and may not reflect the views of the Association, its Officers, Directors or Members. Opposing viewpoints are always welcome and can be emailed to: [email protected].

The ACBA welcomes the following new members:

David Dickinson

James Hartt

Beth Lifshin Clark

Robert Magee

NEW MEMBERS


Forms Over Substance Revisited: WCB Continues to Deny Appeals Due to Incomplete Coversheets

A few months have passed since I first wrote about the Workers’ Compen-sation Board (WCB) rejecting appeals based on incomplete RB-89/Applica-tion for Review forms (see, Forms Over Substance, Albany County Bar Associa-tion Newsletter May 2018). Since then, Board Panel Decisions rejecting Appli-cations for Review continue to pour in to both claimant and defense firms alike, causing concern for whether malprac-tice carriers need to be placed on no-tice, and causing outrage for the due process rights of the appealing party.

While Board Panel Decisions rejecting appeals stack up, one commissioner has, on at least one occasion, departed from the Board’s policy of strict adher-ence to the instructions of the RB-89/Application for Review coversheet.1 In the Icelandic Glacial Board Panel Deci-sion,2 the majority denied review of the claimant’s Application for Review be-cause line 15 of the RB-89 coversheet was not completed; however, a dissent-ing Commissioner found that the appli-cation for review should be decided on the merits, stating

The relevant regulations provide that an application for review may be denied by decision of the Board Panel, when the appellant does not properly file the appli-cation with the Board (12 NYCRR 300.13 (4)(iii)(b)(4)). The crucial word here is the auxiliary verb “may.” This word indicates that the ultimate penalty for failing to completely fill out a form, denial of review, conveys upon the Board the power to use its discretion. Proper exercise of such discretion requires a balancing of the equi-

ties.….. By using its discretion in these matters, the Board can also ensure that its regulations will be upheld by the courts and do not become unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the stat-ute under which they were pro-mulgated Matter of Kuppersmith v Dowling, 93 NY2d 90 (1999).

The dissent continues with a balanc-ing test of procedural requirements to make processes run as efficiently and expeditiously as possible against “the due process interest to safeguard a just outcome”.

Thus, when the interests in life, liberty, or property under review reach a certain threshold, deny-ing review for formal procedural reasons is no longer equitable and the party retains its right to be heard. It is up to the Board’s dis-cretion to determine on a case by case basis whether this threshold has been reached and review al-lowed in spite of inconsequential procedural errors.

The dissent continues: “This does not mean that the Board has no authority to penalize a party for failing to abide by its rules. But simply denying review for failing to answer one question on a form is a penalty that does not fit the crime in this case.”

Presumably, Mandatory Full Board Appeal has been filed in this claim, but as of writing this article, no Full Board Decision has been issued.

In subsequent Board Panel Decisions, the dissenting Commissioner has limit-ed the rationale of the Icelandic Glacier

dissent, concurring with the majority in other Board Panel Decisions in reject-ing Applications for Review and setting forth a balancing test of whether there is a “significant property interest which would trump the denial of administrative review for minor procedural flaws.”3

Notices of Appeal to the Third Depart-ment have been filed in several claims, and perhaps, to not only give the Third Department ease in addressing all of these appeals at once, as well as to highlight the volume of rejected cases, the claimant and defense bar could co-operate and move to consolidate the appeals. Since denials of appeals over “inconsequential procedural errors” hurt all parties, amici briefs may also be in order. ●

1. Some question has come up as to whether the RB-89 is a “coversheet” as opposed to the Appeal itself. As-suming that a coversheet is generally defined as a sheet of paper required to be filed with a court or agency with supporting documents which typically provides a sum-mary of the parties, issue, and other information about the filing or action, and as Reg. 300.13(b) requires the fil-ing in the format prescribed by the Chair, and as subsec-tion (i) provides the requirements for an attached brief, it would seem that the RB-89 is a “coversheet” for the brief even if the RB-89 form can be filed as an Application for Review without attached brief.

2. 2018 WL 1723590 (WCB#: G129 6010, February 13, 2018).

3. See, Montgomery County NYSARC, 2018 WL 2328002 (WCB#: G126 2063, May 15, 2018); Liverpool School Dist., 2018 WL 2327988 (WCB#: G026 8601, May 15, 2018).

Kelly B. Dean, Esq.Walsh and [email protected]


Attorneys in Public Service (APS) Committee Awards Ceremony & Reception | June 20, 2018


ACBA & Albany Law School Golf Outing | June 25, 2018

Update on Evidence CLE | June 19, 2018

See all photos from this event at www.flickr.com/photos/albanylaw

http://www.flickr.com/photos/albanylaw


Judging the Judges

“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforce-ment away from our country, is ridicu-lous and will be overturned!” President Donald Trump, 35 days into office, tweeting about Senior United States District Judge James Robart’s “Muslim Ban” ruling. The government’s request for a stay was denied on appeal.

“A judge is not supposed to know anything about the facts of life until they have been presented in evidence and explained to him at least three times.’’ Lord Chief Justice Parker

Judge Laura Drager has been an Act-ing New York Supreme Court Justice since 1995. Late last year, she presided over the storied divorce trial of billion-aire Harry Macklowe. During the trial she asked Mr. and Ms. Macklowe to equally share the marital debt. She then told them if they did not agree with her suggestion, she would call their “army” of accountants to the stand and, “this is going to drag on for two or three more years.” Putting aside that judges have limited ability to call any witness and really none when it comes to an army of accountants, and divorce actions are given priority in New York by court rule and New York’s Rules of Judicial Con-duct require a judge to “dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly.” Maybe Judge Drager considers two or three years to be prompt and efficient. In any event the trial ended in December and I believe the parties are awaiting Judge Drager’s decision. She also gave us this little gem when the husband claimed a negative net balance: “It’s not uncommon in matri-monial cases that a spouse says I have no money and yet shortly before the di-vorce action starts submits a statement

to a landlord that says, oh, yeah, I have plenty of money you should give me an apartment.” Really, Your Honor? In my forty years of matrimonial practice, that never happened, but I cannot match Judge Drager’s 3 years in private prac-tice followed by eleven years as a dis-trict attorney, and 31 years as a Judge of the Criminal Court of New York. She does however have three affirmances, six modifications and one reversal in her matrimonial decisions reviewed by the First Department. Quite the batting average.

But that is nothing compared to New York State Supreme Court Justice George Peck who has been a judge since 1995. In that time he forgot or never knew that Debtors’ Prisons were abolished in the United States in the 19th Century and in New York in 1832. So, when a matrimonial lawyer sued his client for failure to pay a $45,000 legal bill, the case came before Judge Peck. The client was a 61 year old paralegal who had lost his job when his employ-er relocated to Buffalo. No matter to Judge Peck who threw the guy in jail for a month for not paying his lawyer. He’s out now but the divorce lawyer is proba-bly going to go back to Judge Peck for another jail stint for the client whom the lawyer now claims owes $61,000.

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Canada) Judge Kristine Eidsvik was the “judge in residence” who lectured at the University of Calgary for the last academic year. On January 4, she was giving a lecture on mediation and nego-tiation. During the lecture she told the class that she felt uncomfortable having to walk into a room “full of big dark peo-ple” during judicial dispute resolutions, and that she was used to being in an “ivory tower,” where she’s “removed from the riff raff.” I had no idea that big dark people were considered riff raff by some in Calgary. Oh well. Judge Eidsvik has apologized by saying her remarks “could be construed as insensitive to ra-cial minorities.” Could be, your Honor? Could be? Judge Eidsvik has resigned

her position with the university and she was not sanctioned for her conduct.

In 2005, Roy Peterson was an Ad-ministrative Law Judge in the District of Columbia. He sued his dry cleaner for $67 million dollars for losing his pants which they found one day later. He then claimed they weren’t his pants. They of-fered him $12,000 and he reduced his demand to $54 million which includ-ed $2 million for “discomfort, inconve-nience, and mental distress.” He lost, appealed and lost again. Two years later he was fired. He sued for that and lost. He has been affectionately referred to as Judge Fancy Pants by bloggers

Elizabeth S. Beckley is a Magisteri-al District Court Judge in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. That’s a part time position, but Judge Beckley does have a private practice. Last April high school sweethearts Alexander Parker and Krisha Schmick came to her court to be married. Instead, Judge Beckley decided to call Immigration and Cus-toms Enforcement (ICE) because she believed that Mr. Parker was not in the United States legally. Why? Not be-cause of his name: Alex Parker. The way he looked? Just how does an American citizen look Your Honor? Mr. Parker was born in Guatemala, adopted by Ameri-can parents when he was eight months old and raised in the United States. Mr. Parker does not speak Spanish and doesn’t consider himself an immigrant. He and his bride have a child togeth-er. He had a Guatemalan Identification card that showed he was here legally, but that wasn’t good enough for the judge. She told him he couldn’t leave the courtroom to get any other identifi-cation. ICE fingerprinted him and found that he was here legally but only after they threatened to take him to an immi-gration center. The Parkers now live in Florida as the groom felt he was safer there “from people like the judge who would try to do anything to have me de-ported.” Previously, Judge Beckley had a groom and best man taken out of her


Michael P. Friedman, Esq. ACBA President, [email protected]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_infliction_of_emotional_distress


courtroom in handcuffs by ICE at a mar-riage ceremony. She has served on the Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania for two years and has lectured on Civil Practice in Magisterial District Courts for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute.

Last but far from least, we have John W. Primomo who had been a United States Magistrate Judge for the West-ern District of Texas since 1988. During that time he swore in over 100,000 new citizens. Just after the elections in No-vember of 2016, he presided over a citi-zenship ceremony for brand new Ameri-cans. He took the opportunity to discuss his unique view of the First Amendment and players kneeling at football games during the playing of the national an-them. He said, “I detest that, because you can protest things that happen in this country. You have every right to. You don’t do that by offending national sym-bols like the national anthem and the flag of the United States.” Really? Last I looked, 29 years ago the United States Supreme Court held that burning an American flag is protected free speech under the Constitution. You would think that Judge Primomo might know this one as his home state was the Peti-tioner: Texas v. Johnson and it has not

been overruled. Judge Primomo also gave the new citizens this nice slant on Freedom of Speech and the right to stay in the United States: “I can assure you that whether you voted for him [Donald Trump] or you did not vote for him, if you are a citizen of the United States, he is your President. He will be your Pres-ident, and if you do not like that, you need to go to another country.” Guess I better update my passport if that’s the


JUDGING THE JUDGES (continued)

rule in the now made great again U.S. of A. To the credit of the court system, a few weeks later they stopped Judge Primomo from presiding over citizen-ship ceremonies to which the judge said that he was “just trying to say something nice but it didn’t work out that way.” No, judge, it didn’t. Judge Primomo retired last September.

Alexander Parker and his bride. ●

Brown Bag Lunch with Judge Richard Sise July 10, 2018


Tax Breaks for Businesses Hiring New EmployeesIf you’re thinking about hiring new em-

ployees this this year you won’t want to miss out on tax breaks available to busi-nesses with employees.

1. Payroll Tax Deduction for Startups

As part of the Research & Develop-ment Tax Credit, for tax years 2016 and beyond, startup businesses (C-corps and S-corps) with little to no revenue that qualify for the research and devel-opment tax credit can apply the credit against employer-paid Social Security taxes instead of income tax owed. Sole proprietorships, as well as Partnerships, C-corps and S-corps with gross re-ceipts of less than $5 million for the cur-rent year and with no gross receipts for the previous year, can take advantage of the credit. Up to $250,000 in payroll costs can be offset by the credit.

2. Work Opportunity Credit

The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) is a federal tax credit for em-ployers that hire employees from the following targeted groups of individuals:

• A member of a family that is a Qualified Food Stamp Recipient

• A member of a family that is a Qualified Aid to Families with De-pendent Children (AFDC) Recipi-ent

• Qualified Veterans• Qualified Ex-Felons, Pardoned,

Paroled or Work Release Individ-uals

• Vocational Rehabilitation Refer-rals

• Qualified Summer Youths• Qualified Supplemental Security

Income (SSI) Recipients• Qualified Individuals living within

an Empowerment Zone or Rural Renewal Community

• Long Term Family Assistance

Recipient (TANF) (formerly known as Welfare to Work)

The tax credit (a maximum of $9,600) is taken as a general business credit (Form 3800, General Business Cred-it), and is applied against tax liability on business income. It is limited to the amount of the business income tax lia-bility or social security tax owed. Normal carryback and carryforward rules apply.

For qualified tax-exempt organiza-tions, the credit is limited to the amount of employer social security tax owed on wages paid to all employees for the pe-riod the credit is claimed.

Also, an employer must obtain certifi-cation that an individual is a member of the targeted group before the employer may claim the credit.

Note: The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (the PATH Act) retroactively allows eligible employers to claim the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) for all targeted group employee categories that were in effect prior to the enactment of the PATH Act, if the individual began or begins work for the employer after December 31, 2014 and before January 1, 2020.

For tax-exempt employers, the PATH Act retroactively allows them to claim the WOTC for qualified veterans who begin work for the employer after De-cember 31, 2014, and before January 1, 2020.

3. Disabled Access Credit

Employers that hire disabled workers might also be able to take advantage of two additional tax credits in addition to the WOTC.

The Disabled Access Credit is a non-refundable credit for small busi-nesses that incur expenditures for the purpose of providing access to per-sons with disabilities. An eligible small business is one that earned $1 million or less or had no more than 30 full-time employees in the previous year; they may take the credit each, and every year they incur access expenditures.

Eligible expenditures include amounts paid or incurred to:

1. Remove barriers that prevent a busi-ness from being accessible to or usable by individuals with disabilities;

2. Provide qualified interpreters or oth-er methods of making audio materials available to hearing-impaired individu-als;

3. Provide qualified readers, taped texts, and other methods of making vi-sual materials available to individuals with visual impairments; or

4. Acquire or modify equipment or de-vices for individuals with disabilities.

4. Architectural Barrier Removal Tax Deduction

The Architectural Barrier Removal Tax Deduction encourages businesses of any size to remove architectural and transportation barriers to the mobility of persons with disabilities and the elderly. Businesses may claim a deduction of up to $15,000 a year for qualified expenses for items that normally must be capital-ized. Businesses claim the deduction by listing it as a separate expense on their income tax return.

Businesses may use the Disabled Tax Credit and the Architectural/Trans-portation Tax Deduction together in the same tax year if the expenses meet the requirements of both sections. To use both, the deduction is equal to the dif-ference between the total expenditures and the amount of the credit claimed.

5. State Tax Credits

Many states use tax credits and de-ductions as incentives for hiring and job growth. Employers are eligible for these credits and deductions when they cre-ate new jobs and hire employees that meet certain requirements. Examples include the New Employment Credit (NEC) in California, the Kentucky Small Business Tax Credit, and Empire Zone Tax Credits in New York.


Daniel A. Ciampino, CPAManaging Director, Staff Ciampino & Company, CPAs & Advisors (ACBA Business Member)[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




Tax Breaks for Businesses Hiring New Employees (continued)

6. FICA Tip Tax Credit

Certain food and beverage establish-ments can claim a credit for social secu-rity and Medicare taxes paid or incurred by the employer on certain employees’ tips. The credit is part of the general business credit. To take advantage of this credit, restaurant managers must complete IRS Form 8846, Credit for Employer Social Security and Medicare

Taxes Paid on Certain Employee Tips. If the restaurant employs more than 10 tipped employees, then IRS Form 8027, Employer’s Annual Information Return of Tip Income and Allocated Tips is used to report tips and determine allocated tips for tipped employees. The credit is not refundable (there must be taxable income); however, unused FICA credits may be carried back one year or carried

forward up to 20 years.

Questions?

If you’re a business owner and are wondering what tax breaks your busi-ness qualifies for, don’t hesitate to call the office and speak to a tax and ac-counting professional you can trust. ●

ACBA Meet & Greet with Presiding Justice Elizabeth Garry at Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti P.C. June 5, 2018


Thank you to all of our CLE Speakers who presented accredited programs by the Albany County Bar Association from January to June 2018.

Thank you to the members of our many committees, who work hard developing quality programming for our local legal community. We appreciate your commitment!

Contact us and let’s discuss your interests.

[email protected] | (518) 445-7691 x115

Are you interestedIN GETTING INVOLVED IN A CERTAIN COMMITTEE?

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

Thank You to our CLE Speakers

Charles Amodio, CPA, CFF, MAFF, MBA Ferraro Amodio & Zarecki CPAs

Randall Beach, Esq. Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLP

Carla Brogoch, Esq. The Legal Project

Hon. Mae D’Agostino U.S. District Court Judge for the

Northern District of New York

Thomas R. Fallati, Esq. Tabner, Ryan & Keniry, LLP

John D. Flory III Co-Founder & Partner at Cyberstone Security

Hon. Victoria A. Graffeo Harris Beach, PLLC

Antony Haynes, Esq. Associate Dean for Strategic Initiatives and

Information Systems Albany Law School

Prof. Robert A. Heverly, Esq. Albany Law School

Prof. Michael Hutter, Esq. Albany Law School, Powers & Santola, LLP

E. Stewart Jones, Jr., Esq. E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP

Desiree Kelleigh Investigative Solutions Expert at Alliance

Worldwide Investigative Group Inc.

Hon. Rachel Kretser Albany Law School

John Maloney, Esq. Carter Conboy, P.C.

Peter Moschetti, Esq. Anderson, Moschetti & Taffany, PLLC

Hon. Karla Moskowitz Associate Justice of the New York Appellate

Division of the Supreme Court First Judicial Department

Susan Pattenaude, Esq. The Legal Project

Kristin Petrella, Esq. Albany County Bar Association

Hon. Stacy Pettit Albany County Surrogates Court

Mark Sonders, Esq. E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP

Jeremy H. Speich, Esq. Harris Beach, PLLC

Hon. Daniel Stewart United States Magistrate Judge for the


Paul C. Zarecki, CPA, CFE, CFF Ferraro Amodio & Zarecki CPAs


BENCH & BAR IN THE NEWS

Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, announces two new Of Counsels, BARBARA C. BRENNER and BRIAN M. WANG.

Barbara Brenner joins Whiteman Osterman & Hanna’s Im-migration Practice Group. Prior to joining the Firm, Ms. Bren-ner was a principal with Copland and Brenner in Latham, New York. Ms. Brenner represents clients in a broad range of immigration matters, focusing on family- and employ-ment-based petitions and applications, waivers of inadmis-sibility and removability, and naturalization and citizenship cases.

Brian Wang also joins the Immigration Practice Group at the Firm and previously was a sole practitioner. Mr. Wang focuses his practice on all aspects of immigration law, in-cluding family- and employment-based immigration, non-immigrant employment and investor visas, asylum and humanitarian relief, naturalization, inadmissibility waivers, and removal defense. He consults with criminal defense at-torneys on the immigration consequences of criminal con-victions and advises on crafting plea agreements to avoid deportation. Additionally, he has developed an expertise in citizenship matters, including military naturalization, expe-ditious naturalization, and complex acquired/derivative cit-izenship claims.

On June 7, 2018, HONORABLE PETER G. CRUMMEY, Colonie Town Justice, presided over a mock jury trial of People of the State of California v. Casey Campbell in the historic Appellate Division Courtroom in the Albany County Courthouse as part of the Shaker Junior High School Twelfth Annual Law Day Program. Shaker Junior High Teacher Seth Harris, son of Susan Harris and the late Judge Joseph Ha rris, coordinated the program with colleagues, David Wallingford and Jennifer Allard, which was also supported by County Court personnel.

SUSAN F. BARTKOWSKI has opened her own practice in Saratoga Springs, NY, focusing on automobile dealership representation, corporate and commercial transactions, real estate and estate planning and probate.Contact information is:Law Offices of Susan F. Bartkowski, P.C.63 Putnam Street, Suite 202Saratoga Springs, NY 12866email: [email protected]: 518-879-9098fax: 518-581-9166

TULLY RINCKEY PLLC announces the opening of its Dublin, Ireland office. Tully Rinckey Ireland is the first step of a long-term investment focused on the international diver-sification of the firm’s markets and practice areas.

With the help of Ireland’s inward investment promotion agency, the Irish Development Agency, Tully Rinckey’s Dub-lin office will serve as the platform for the global expansion of the firm throughout the European Union, and beyond. The firm plans to eventually open several additional offices, in Galway, Cork and Limerick, to specifically service the legal needs of Ireland’s regional enterprises. This will be followed by the opening of other offices throughout Europe, Asia and the Middle East – all with the purpose of providing our cli-ents high-quality, worldwide representation and assistance.

The Dublin office will offer business clients, on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, a gateway to establishing themselves in Europe and the United States. Our Dublin office will be connected to Tully Rinckey’s international network, through a high-tech voice and video conferencing system that pro-duces instant communication capabilities from Dublin to San Diego. Tully Rinckey’s international platform allows our Irish solicitors to quickly marshal relevant experience across different practice areas and offices, giving our cli-ents an edge over other business owners.

On July 4, 2018, Tully Rinckey held an inaugural reception at Stephens Green Hibernian Club to celebrate the Dublin office opening. As of July 4, 2018, Tully Rinckey has been approved to commence the practice of law by the Law So-ciety of Ireland.

Thank you to all of our CLE Speakers who presented accredited programs by the Albany County Bar Association from January to June 2018.

Thank you to the members of our many committees, who work hard developing quality programming for our local legal community. We appreciate your commitment!

Contact us and let’s discuss your interests.

[email protected] | (518) 445-7691 x115

Are you interestedIN GETTING INVOLVED IN A CERTAIN COMMITTEE?

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

Thank You to our CLE Speakers

Charles Amodio, CPA, CFF, MAFF, MBA Ferraro Amodio & Zarecki CPAs

Randall Beach, Esq. Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLP

Carla Brogoch, Esq. The Legal Project

Hon. Mae D’Agostino U.S. District Court Judge for the


Thomas R. Fallati, Esq. Tabner, Ryan & Keniry, LLP

John D. Flory III Co-Founder & Partner at Cyberstone Security

Hon. Victoria A. Graffeo Harris Beach, PLLC

Antony Haynes, Esq. Associate Dean for Strategic Initiatives and

Information Systems Albany Law School

Prof. Robert A. Heverly, Esq. Albany Law School

Prof. Michael Hutter, Esq. Albany Law School, Powers & Santola, LLP

E. Stewart Jones, Jr., Esq. E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP

Desiree Kelleigh Investigative Solutions Expert at Alliance

Worldwide Investigative Group Inc.

Hon. Rachel Kretser Albany Law School

John Maloney, Esq. Carter Conboy, P.C.

Peter Moschetti, Esq. Anderson, Moschetti & Taffany, PLLC

Hon. Karla Moskowitz Associate Justice of the New York Appellate

Division of the Supreme Court First Judicial Department

Susan Pattenaude, Esq. The Legal Project

Kristin Petrella, Esq. Albany County Bar Association

Hon. Stacy Pettit Albany County Surrogates Court

Mark Sonders, Esq. E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP

Jeremy H. Speich, Esq. Harris Beach, PLLC

Hon. Daniel Stewart United States Magistrate Judge for the


Paul C. Zarecki, CPA, CFE, CFF Ferraro Amodio & Zarecki CPAs

Looking for Attorney Records of the late F. Joseph Leone. He practiced at 100 State Street room 324, Albany, NY. I am looking for my adoption papers that he drafted, Christine Lee Murphy (adopted name) October 1959. If you have any information please call 484-515-9795.

Looking for attorney records


Copy of the very first ACBA Clam Bake invitation, circa 1933


TWO OFFICES AVAILABLE in Multi-Lawyer Suite21 Everett Road Ext., (Near I-90 Exit 5)Conference Room, KitchenPhones, Voice Mail, Fax/Scanner/Copier, Postage MeterLegal Research Access provided.Ample parking. Reasonably Priced Rent.Contact Stephen Levy at (518) 489-1098.

Maynard, O’Connor, Smith & Catali-notto, LLP is currently seeking a LITIGATION ASSOCIATE ATTOR-NEY. Candidates must have 1-3 years of experience in civil litigation with a strong background in research, writing, depositions and case man-agement. Qualified candidates should submit their resume, writing sample and salary requirements to Scott Adelmann; adelmann@maynard oconnorlaw.com

Commercial Transaction Attorney Wanted – Prominent Albany, New York law firm seeks qualified asso-ciate with 3-5 years’ experience pre-ferred to practice in its Corporate / Real Estate / Commercial practice areas. Record of academic and pro-fessional achievement required. Top salary and benefits. Send cover let-ter, resume and writing sample to: [email protected]

ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY- Tabak & Kiosse, LLP, a matrimonial law firm in the Capital District, seeks full time associate. Candidates should be dynamic; effective communicators; and hardworking. Experience or demonstrated interest in the subject matter necessary. Applications will be kept confidential. Send resume to [email protected]

CLASSIFIED

Dreyer Boyajian LLP, an AV/Preemi-nent Albany litigation firm, is looking for a talented, hungry, and fearless LITIGATION ASSOCIATE with ex-cellent academic credentials and a minimum of 1- 2 years of a litigation background and/or clerkship to work on interesting and often high profile tort and criminal matters. All inquiries will be kept completely confidential. Email resume and writing sample to: [email protected].

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SATFF AT-TORNEY – POUGHKEEPSIE OF-FICE

Duties: intakes and individual case work, litigation in state courts, includ-ing appellate practice, and educa-tion and outreach efforts directed at community members, advocates and service providers. Must be a Member in good standing of the New York State Bar; with 3 years of legal experience. Excellent people skills; Excellent written and verbal communication skills; Demonstrated commitment to serving low-income persons with prior experience in legal services or similar program.

Please apply at our career center by following this link, and include cover letter, writing sample and three references: http://bit.ly/LSHV-DomesticViolenceStaffAttorney-PoughkeepsieNY

Entry Level Assistant Public Defender — Position primarily en-tails representation of indigent de-fendants in local criminal courts. Room for additional responsibilities and advancement. Minimum quali-fications: Licensed to practice law in New York State and admitted to the New York State Bar. Must be

resident of Albany County. Start-ing Salary: $57,740 plus excellent health benefits, NYS retirement system, eligible for student loan forgiveness program.

Interested applicants should send re-sume and cover letter to: Jane.Pearson [email protected]

Felony Level Assistant Public De-fender – Position primarily entails representation of indigent defen-dants with felony charges in local and superior courts. Minimum quali-fications: Licensed to practice law in New York State and admitted to the New York State Bar. Must be resident of Albany County. Substantial prior criminal law experience preferred. Starting Salary: $71,400 plus excel-lent health benefits, NYS retirement system, eligible for student loan forgiveness program.

Interested applicants should send resume and cover letter to: [email protected]

Hodgson Russ LLP is seeking one or more attorneys for the Envi-ronmental and Energy Practice Groups in the firm’s Buffalo or Al-bany offices. Successful candidates will have at least three years’ expe-rience interacting with government agencies such as the Public Service Commission, the NYS DEC, and/or local zoning authorities; and rep-resenting clients in statutory and regulatory matters, including those related to land use, development, environmental impact, compliance, remediation, siting, zoning, and/or planning. Transactional experience a plus, but not required.

Please visit our website to apply. www.hodgsonruss.com





http://bit.ly/LSHV-DomesticViolenceStaffAttorney-PoughkeepsieNY







http://www.hodgsonruss.com


ADVERTISING POLICY FOR THE ACBA NEWSLETTER

Advertising & articles appearing in the ACBA Newsletter does not presume endorsement of products, services & views of the Albany County Bar Association.

2018 Rates and Deadlines: Albany County Bar Association Rates: Member: $50 in our classified section (approximately 30-40 words) additional fees will be incurred as the number of words increase. Non-member: $100 in our classified section (approximately 30-40 words) additional fees will be incurred as the number of words increase. There is an additional $10 charge for Blind Ads. Seminars announced: $60 (approx. 30-40 words).

The rates for all photo ready ads are: full page (8.5" x 11") = $550; half page (7.5" x 5") = $375; Quarter page (3.5" x 5") = $300; Business card size (3.5" x 2 .5") = $200.

Classified Advertising Policy: All ads must be prepaid and in writing. We also hold the right to edit all ads. For display advertising rates and information, please call (518) 445-7691. All ads must contain wording “Paid Advertising” at the top. It shall be the policy of the Albany County Bar Association that no advertisement should indicate any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on color, handicap, religion, sex, national origin, or age.

Change of Scene and Bench & Bar in the News: Provided at no cost to our members and inclusion is limited to ACBA Members. All notices must be submitted in writing. E-mail is preferable.

Deadline: The second Friday of the prior month. E-mail ad copy and remit payment to Albany County Bar Association, 112 State Street, Suite 1120, Albany, NY 12207. We also take credit cards, call (518) 445-7691.


Morning Meet & Greet at Harris Beach PLLC June 13, 2018


And “like” us on Facebook /AlbanyCountyBar

Follow us on Twitter @AlbanyCountyBar

Albany County Bar AssociationC A L E N D A R O F E V E N T S

Please visit albanycountybar.com to register and learn more about our upcoming events!

The Albany County Bar Association has been certified by the NYS Continuing Legal Education Board as an Accredited Provider of CLE in the NYS and has also been given approval to provide non-traditional CLE format courses. Hardship Scholarships are available. For a list of our CDs, or additions to our programs, please visit our website: www.albanycountybar.com.

September6 Clam Bake, Western Turnpike, Clubhouse Pavilion, 2350 Western Avenue, Guilderland, NY

11 #MeToo CLE, Nixon Peabody, 677 Broadway, 10th Floor, Albany, NY

20 Family Law 101 / Help Center Training CLE, 112 State Street, Room 940, Albany, NY

27 Town Court 101 CLE, Swifty’s Pub & Restaurant, 95 Everett Road, Albany, NY

October2 Raise the Age CLE, Albany Law School, 80 New Scotland Avenue, Albany, NY

11 Morning Meet and Greet, Copps DiPaola Silverman, 126 State Street, 6th Floor, Albany, NY

19 Becoming a Better (Legal) Writer CLE, Cahill Room, 112 State Street, Cahill Room, Albany, NY

24 Family Law 101 / Help Center Training CLE, Nixon Peabody, 677 Broadway, 10th Floor, Albany, NY

November7 Strategies for Obtaining Zoning Compliance CLE – FREE CLE 112 State Street, Room

930, Albany, NY

7 Family Law 101 / Help Center Training CLE 112 State Street, Room 940, Albany, NY

29 Joint LASNNY, The Legal Project and ACBA Holiday Party, Renaissance Hotel, 144 State Street, Albany, NY

December10 Annual Memorial Service Albany County Courthouse, 16 Eagle Street, Albany, NY

12 Family Law 101 / Help Center Training CLE 112 State Street, Room 940, Albany, NY

albanycountybar.com [email protected](518) 445-7691

PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDALBANY, N.Y.PERMIT #749

Thank You AFTER PARTY SPONSOR RECEPTION

AND DINNER SPONSORS

PARKING SPONSOR

VISIT ACBA’S FLIKR TO SEE IMAGES FROM THE EVENING WHAT ARE WE PLANNING NEXT? FIND OUT ALBANYCOUNTYBAR.COM

TO ALL THE COURT OF APPEALS SPONSORS

Albany County Bar Association112 State Street | Suite 545Albany, NY 12207

ALBANYCOUNTYBAR.COM

PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE

PAID ALBANY, N.Y.PERMIT #749

COLBYAttorneys ServiceCompany

SPECIALIZING IN:

Corporate Filings UCC Filings / Searches / CopiesFranchise Tax SearchesDocument Retrieval

Call us first when you need fast reliable support service

Serving Attorneys Since 1939

111 Washington Avenue, Suite 703, Albany, N.Y. 12210 (518) 463-4426 Fax (518) 434-2574e-mail: [email protected]

800.832.1220

Information RetrievalDMV Searches Service of Process

Documents

ALBANY COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION - cdn.ymaws.com · 4 | Albany County Bar Association Newsletter | July/August 2018 COURT OF APPEALS NOTE In Keller-Goldman v. Goldman, 2018 Westlaw 2931052